Part II

Fundamental Concept

Chapter 2
Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics

L/O/G/O
www.themegallery.com
ADVANCED COMPOSITE M ATERIAL LABORATORY
 2. Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics
 The concepts of fracture mechanics that were derived prior to 1960 are
applicable only to materials that obey Hooke’s law. Although corrections for
small-scale plasticity were proposed as early as1948, these analyses are
restricted to structures whose global behavior is linear elastic.

 Since 1960, fracture mechanics theories have been developed to account

for various types of nonlinear material behavior (i.e., plasticity and
viscoplasticity) as well as dynamic effects. All of these more recent results,
however, are extensions of linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM). Thus
a solid background in the fundamentals of LEFM is essential to a
understanding of more advanced concepts in fracture mechanics.

 This chapter describes both the energy and stress intensity approaches to
linear fracture mechanics.The early work of Inglis and Griffith is
summarized, followed by an introduction to the energy release rate and
stress intensity parameters. The appendix at the end of this chapter
includes mathematical derivations of several important results in LEFM.
Subsequent chapters also address linear elastic fracture mechanics.
 2.1 AN ATOMIC VIEW OF FRACTURE

Eb  x Pdx
o

x
P  Pc sin( )

x
P  Pc ( )

x
Bonding Stiffness ; k  Pc ( )

E
c  (2.4)
x o
or E
c  (2.5)

1  x 
2 0
s   c sin( )dx   (2.6)

c

(2.4) -> (2.6)
FIGURE 2.1 Potential energy and force as a function of atomic E s
separation. At the equilibrium separation xo the potential energy is c  (2.7)
minimized, and the attractive and repelling forces are balanced.
xo
 2.2 STRESS CONCENTRATION EFFECT OF FLAWS
2a
 A   (1  )
b

a b2
 A   (1  2 ) where, 
 a

When a>>b,
a a
 A  2  A  2
 xo

  x o  plastic deformation

E s
f  Fracture at  A  C
4a
FIGURE 2.2 Elliptical hole in a flat plate.

E s
f   Numerical simulation
a
by Kanninen
 2.3 THE GRIFFITH ENERGY BALANCE

 According to the first law of thermodynamics, when a system goes from

a nonequilibrium state to equilibrium, there is a net decrease in energy.
In 1920, Griffith applied this idea to the formation of a crack.

 It may be supposed, for the present purpose, that the crack is

formed by the sudden annihilation of the tractions acting on its
surface. At the instant following this operation, the strains, and
therefore the potential energy under consideration, have their
original values; but in general, the new state is not one of
equilibrium. If it is not a state of equilibrium, then, by the theorem
of minimum potential energy, the potential energy is reduced by the
attainment of equilibrium; if it is a state of equilibrium, the energy
does not change.
 2.3 THE GRIFFITH ENERGY BALANCE
 The Griffith energy balance for an incremental
increase in the crack area dA, under equilibrium
conditions, can be expressed in the following way:

dE d dWs d dWs
  0 or  
dA dA dA dA dA
E = total energy
Π = potential energy supplied by the internal strain energy
and external forces
Ws = work required to create new surfaces

 2a 2B
  o 
E
w s  4aB s
d  2a dWs
 2 s
  and
dA E dA
FIGURE 2.3 A through-thickness crack
in an infinitely wide plate subjected to 2E s
a remote tensile stress. f 
a

 The crack area is defined as the projected area of the

crack (2aB), but since a crack includes two matching
surfaces, the surface area is 2A
 2.3 THE GRIFFITH ENERGY BALANCE

 The Griffith approach can be applied to other crack

shapes. For example, the fracture stress for a penny-
shaped flaw embedded in the material (Figure 2.4) is
given by

E s
f 
2(1   2 )a

where a is the crack radius and ν is Poisson’s ratio.

FIGURE 2.4 A penny-shaped (circular)

crack embedded in a solid subjected to a
remote tensile stress.
 2.3.1 Comparison With the Critical Stress Criterion

 The Griffith model is based on a global energy balance: for fracture to occur,
the energy stored in the structure must be sufficient to overcome the surface
energy of the material. Since fracture involves the breaking of bonds, the
stress on the atomic level must be equal to the cohesive stress.

 Consider a crack with ρ = 5 × 10−6 m. Such a crack would appear sharp under
a light microscope, but ρ would be four orders of magnitude larger than the
atomic spacing in a typical crystalline solid. Thus the local stress approach
would predict a global fracture strength 100 times larger than the Griffith
equation. The actual material behavior is somewhere between these extremes;
fracture stress does depend on notch root radius, but not to the extent implied
by the Inglis stress analysis.
2.3.2 Modified Griffith Equation

 valid for ideally brittle solids.

2E s
f 
a
(a)
 Irwin and Orowan independently
modified the Griffith expression to
account for materials that are capable of
plastic flow. The revised expression is
given by
(b)
2E ( s   p )
f 
a

 Generalize the Griffith model (c)

FIGURE 2.6 Crack propagation in various types of

2Ew f materials, with the corresponding fracture energy.
f  (a) ideally brittle material, (b) quasi-brittle elastic-plastic
a material and, (c) brittle material with crack meandering
and branching.
 Example 2.1
 A flat plate made from a brittle material contains a macroscopic through-thickness crack
with half length a1 and notch tip radius ρ. A sharp penny-shaped microcrack with radius
a2 is located near the tip of the larger flaw, as illustrated in Figure 2.5. Estimate the
minimum size of the microcrack required to cause failure in the plate when the Griffith
equation is satisfied by the global stress and a1.

2E s a1 E s
2 f 
a  2(1   2 )a 2

 Solving for a2 gives

 2 FIGURE 2.5 A sharp microcrack at the tip

a2  of a macroscopic crack.
16(1   2 )

 for ν = 0.3, a2 = 0.68ρ. Thus the nucleating

microcrack must be approximately the size of
the macroscopic crack-tip radius.
 2.4 THE ENERGY RELEASE RATE
dWs
Gc   2w f
 In 1956, Irwin proposed an dA
energy approach for fracture.
Irwin defined an energy  U F
release rate G, which is a
measure of the energy available
Load controlled F  P
for an increment of crack  P
extension:
d
U  
0
Pd 
2
G 
dA
 G is the rate of change in potential
energy with the crack area. Since G is
obtained from the derivative of a
potential, it is also called the crack
extension force or the crack driving
force.
 2a
G 
E
where U is the strain energy stored in the body
and F is the work done by external forces
FIGURE 2.7 Cracked plate at a fixed load P.
 2.4 THE ENERGY RELEASE RATE
  U pd pd
(dU )p  Pd  
2 2
1  dU  P  dP 
G       When displacement is fixed, dF=0 and
B  da p 2B  da P the strain energy decreases
dP
(dU ) 
Displacement controlled F=0,   U 2
(dU )  (dU )
1  dU    dP 
G       
B  da  2B  da 


C 
P
P 2 dC
G  (2.30)
2B da

 dU   dU 
    
 da p  da 

FIGURE 2.8 Cracked plate at a fixed displacement Δ.

 Example 2.2

 Determine the energy release rate for a double cantilever beam (DCB)
specimen (Figure 2.9)

 pa 3 Bh 3
 where I 
2 3EI 12

2a 3
C  
P 3EI

P 2a 2 12P 2a 2
G   2 3
BEI B hE

FIGURE 2.9 Double cantilever beam (DCB)

specimen.
 2.5 INSTABILITY AND THE R CURVE

 Crack extension occurs when G = 2wf; but crack growth may be stable
or unstable, depending on how G and wf vary with crack size. The
corresponding plot of G vs. crack extension is the driving force curve.

resistance curve or R curve

 Stable Crack Growth

dG dR
G R 
da da

 Unstable Crack Growth

dG dR

da da
FIGURE 2.10 Schematic driving force vs. R curve diagrams
(a) flat R curve and (b) rising R curve.
2.5.1 Reason for the R CURVE

 The R curve for an ideally brittle material is flat because the surface
energy is an invariant material property. When nonlinear material
behavior accompanies fracture, however, the R curve can take on a
variety of shapes.

 Ductile fracture in metals usually results in a rising R curve; a

plastic zone at the tip of the crack increases in size as the crack
grows.

 The size and geometry of the cracked structure can exert some
influence on the shape of the R curve. A crack in a thin sheet tends
to produce a steeper R curve than a crack in a thick plate because
there is a low degree of stress triaxiality at the crack tip in the thin
sheet, while the material near the tip of the crack in the thick plate
may be in plane strain. The R curve can also be affected if the
growing crack approaches a free boundary in the structure.
 2.5.2 Load Control VS. Displacement Control

 Displacement control tends to be more

stable than load control. With some
configurations, the driving force actually
decreases with crack growth in
displacement control

 Displacement control ; Cm= 0,

 Load Control ; Cm= 

 For the P3 and Δ3, If the structure is load

controlled, it is at the point of instability
where the driving force curve is tangent to
the R curve. In displacement control,
however, the structure is stable because FIGURE 2.11 Schematic driving force/R
the driving force decreases with crack curve diagram that compares load control
growth; the displacement must be and displacement control.
increased for further crack growth.
EXAMPLE 2.3
 Evaluate the relative stability of a DCB specimen (Figure 2.9) in load control
and displacement control.

 dG  2 P 2 a 2G
   
 da p 2 BI a
3EI
P 
2a 3

92EI
G 
4Ba 4
(Figure 2.9)
 dG  2
9P EI 4G
     
 da   Ba 5 a

 Therefore, the driving force increases with crack growth in load control and
decreases in displacement control. For a flat R curve, crack growth in load
control is always unstable, while displacement control is always stable.
2.5.3 STRUCTURES WITH FINITE COMPLIANCE
 The structure is fixed at a constant remote displacement ΔT ; the spring
represents the system compliance Cm. Pure displacement control
corresponds to an infinitely stiff spring, where Cm. = 0. Load control (dead
loading) implies an infinitely soft spring, i.e., Cm. = ∞.

G R

 dG  dR
   by Hutchinson and Paris
 da  T da

1
 dG   G   G         
          Cm    
 da  T  a P  P a
a  P   P a 

Above equation is derived in App.2.2 FIGURE 2.12 A cracked structure with

finite compliance, represented
schematically by a spring in series.
 2.6 STRESS ANALYSIS OF CRACKS

By Westergaard and Williams

The stress field in any linear elastic body cracked body is

 k  
 ij   fij ( )   Am r m / 2gij ( )
(m )

 r  m 0

 Where,
G R
 ij  Stress tensor
FIGURE 2.13 Definition of the
k  Constant coordinate axis ahead of a crack tip. The
z direction is normal to the page..
fij  Dimensionless func. of 
2.6.1 THE STRESS INTENSITY FACTOR

 Each mode of loading produces the singularity 1/ r at the crack tip, but the
proportionality constants k and fij depend on the mode. It is convenient to
replace K by stress Intensity factor, where K   2

(I )  K  (I )
lim  ij   I fij ( )
r 0  2r 

(II )  K  (II )
lim  ij   II fij ( )
r 0  2r 

(III )  K  (III )
lim  ij   III fij ( )
r 0  2r 

 Mixed mode
FIGURE 2.14 The three modes of
(total ) (I ) (II ) (III )
 ij   ij   ij   ij loading that can be applied to a crack.
 Mode I singular field
on the crack plane,   0
KI
 xx   yy  (2.39)
2r
2.6.2 Relationship between K and Global Behavior

The crack-tip stresses must be proportional to the

remote stress, and K I ∝ σ .

K I  0( a )

Actual solution by App. 2.3

K I   a

Center cracked specimen is FIGURE 2.16 Edge crack in a semi-infinite

plate subject to a remote tensile stress.

K I  1.12 a

FIGURE 2.17 Comparison of crack-opening

displacements for an edge crack and through
crack. The edge crack opens wider at a given
stress, resulting in a stress intensity that is
12% higher.
 The stress intensity factors for the plate in
Figure 2.18 can be inferred by relating  y 'y '
and τ x′y′ to σ and β through Mohr’s circle:

K I   y y a
' '

  cos2   a
and
K II   x y a
' '

  sin cos  a

 The penny-shaped crack in an infinite

medium is another configuration for which
a closed-form KI solution exists

FIGURE 2.18 Through crack in an infinite plate for the

2
KI   a general case where the principal stress is not
 perpendicular to the crack plane.
2.6.3 EFFECT OF FINITE SIZE

Most configurations for which

there is a closed-form K solution
consist of a crack with a simple
shape (e.g., a rectangle or ellipse)
in an infinite plate.

FIGURE 2.19 Mode I stress intensity factors for elliptical and

semielliptical cracks. These solutions are valid
only as long as the crack is small compared to the plate
dimensions and a ≤ c.
 The Mode I stress intensity factor for
this situation is given by

1/ 2
 2W a 
K I   a  tan( )
 a 2W 

(a) infinite plate

 More accurate solutions for a

through crack in a finite plate have
FIGURE 2.20 Stress concentration effects due to a through
been obtained from finite-element
crack in finite and infinite width plates: (a)
analysis; solutions of this type are infinite plate and (b) finite plate.
usually fit to a polynomial expression.

 a  a a 
K I   a sec( )1/ 2  1  0.025( )2  0.06( )4 
 2W  W W 
(b) finite plate
 FIGURE 2.21 Collinear cracks in an infinite
plate subject to remote tension.

FIGURE 2.22 Comparison of finite width

corrections for a center-cracked plate in tension.
 K (I ,II ,III )  Y a

FIGURE 2.23 Plot of stress intensity solutions

from Table 2.4.
 EXAMPLE 2.4

Show that the KI solution for the single edge notched tensile panel reduces to
Equation (2.42) when a << W.

Solution: All of the KI expressions in Table 2.4 are of the form

P a 
KI  f  
B W w
 

P a  P a  W
f    f   a  Y a
B W w
  BW w  a
a  W
where Y  f  
w  a
a  a
Y  lim f (   (0.752  0.37)
a /W  0
w  W

Thus, lim f Y   1.12

a /W  0
 2.6.4 Principal of superposition

K I(total )  K I(A )  K II(B )  K III(C )

But,

K (total )  K I  K II  K III

K I(total )  K I(membrane)  K I(bending )

FIGURE 2.24 Determination of KI for a semielliptical
1 a  a 
  m m 
p f   pbfb   surface crack under internal pressure p by means of
B W  w  w  the principle of superposition.
 EXAMPLE 2.6

 Derive an expression for KI for an arbitrary traction on the face of a

through crack in an infinite plate.

K I   a
2
uy   x (2a  x )
E'
u y 2 x
 '
(2a ) E 2a  x
1 x
h(x )   FIGURE 2.27 Through crack configuration analyzed in
a 2a  x Example 2.6: (a) definition of coordinate axes and
(b) arbitrary traction applied to crack faces.

 the Mode I stress intensity factor for the two crack tips is as follows:

1 2a x 1 2a 2a  x
K I (x 2a )  
a
 0
p(x )
2a  x
dx , K I (x 0)  
a
0
p(x )
x
dx
2.7 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN K AND G

For linear elastic materials, K and G are uniquely related.

K I2
G 
E

E' E For plane stress

E
E'  For plane strain
1  2

Thus the G-KI relationship for both

plane stress and plane strain becomes

K I2
G  '
E
FIGURE 2.28 Application of closure
stresses which shorten a crack by
Δa.
  u  (  1)K I (a )K I (1  a ) a a  x
G  lim   G  lim
4  a 0 x
dx
a  0  a fixedload
a  0

x  a (  1)K I2 K I2
u  x 0
du (x ) 
8
 '
E

1 K I2 K II2 K III2
du (x )  2  F y (x )u y (x ) G  '  ' 
2 E E 2
  yy (x )u y (x )dx

(  1)K I (1  a ) (a  x )
uy 
2 2

K I (a )
 yy 
2r
 2.8 CRACK-TIP PLASTICITY
 Linear elastic stress analysis of sharp cracks predicts infinite stresses at the
crack tip. In real materials, however, stresses at the crack tip are finite because
the crack-tip radius must be finite Inelastic material deformation, such as
plasticity in metals and crazing in polymers, leads to further relaxation of
crack-tip stresses.

 The elastic stress analysis becomes increasingly inaccurate as the inelastic

region at the crack tip grows. Simple corrections to linear elastic fracture
mechanics (LEFM) are available when moderate crack-tip yielding occurs. For
more extensive yielding, one must apply alternative crack tip parameters that
take nonlinear material behavior into account.

 The size of the crack-tip-yielding zone can be estimated by two methods: the
Irwin approach, where the elastic stress analysis is used to estimate the
elastic-plastic boundary, and the strip-yield model. Both approaches lead to
simple corrections for crack-tip yielding. The term plastic zone usually applies to
metals, but will be adopted here to describe inelastic crack-tip behavior in a
more general sense. Differences in the yielding behavior between metals and
polymers are discussed in Chapter 6.
 2.8.1 THE IRWIN APPROACH

2
1  KI 
ry   
2   In plane stress
 ys 
ry ry KI
YS rP  
0
YSdr  
0 2r
dr

2
1 K 
rP   I 
 ; twice as large as r y
   ys 

aeff  a  ry

 In plane strain, yielding is suppressed by FIGURE 2.29 First-order and second-order

the triaxial stress state, and the Irwin plastic estimates of plastic zone size (ry and rp,
zone correction is smaller by a factor of 3 respectively). The crosshatched
2
area represents load that must be redistributed,
1  KI  resulting in a larger plastic zone.
rP   
6  
 ys 
 K eff  Y (aeff ) aeff

 a
K eff  Y (aeff )
2
1   

1  
2   ys 
1/ 4
a  a 
2

K eff Q sin ( )    cos ( )
2 2

Qeff  c  

2
  
Where, Qeff  Q  0.212 
 YS  FIGURE 2.20
 One interpretation of the Irwin plastic zone
adjustment is that of an effective compliance.
Figure 2.30 compares the load-displacement
behavior of a purely elastic cracked plate with
that ofa cracked plate with a plastic zone at
the tip.
2
Ceff 
P

 Therefore, aeff in this instance can be viewed

as the crack length that results in the
compliance Ceff in a purely elastic material

 Finally, it should be noted that the author

does not recommend using the Irwin plastic
zone adjustment for practical applications. FIGURE 2.30 Definition of the effective
compliance to account for crack-tip plasticity.
 2.8.2 THE STRIP-YIELD MODEL

 The strip-yield model, which is illustrated in

Figure 2.31, was first proposed by Dugdale
and Barenblatt . They assumed a long, slender
plastic zone at the crack tip in a nonhardening
material in plane stress. These early analyses
considered only a through crack in an infinite
plate.

FIGURE 2.32 Crack-opening force applied

at a distance x from the center-line.

FIGURE 2.31 The strip-yield model. The plastic P  YSdx

zone is modeled by yield magnitude compressive
stresses at each crack tip (b).

P a x P a x
K I ( a )  K I ( a ) 
a a x a a x
 YS a   a    x a    x 

K closure 
 (a   )
a  a    x

a    x 
dx
 

a   a  dx
 a
 2YS  a 
(a   )2  x 2 K eff   a sec 
 2YS 
a  a 
K closure  2YS cos1 
  a    2
8  a 
a    K eff  YS a  In sec 
 cos    2YS
2
a 
 2YS 

2 4 6
a 1    1    1   
 1  cos   cos   cos   ...
a 2!  2YS  4!  2YS  6!  2YS 

2
 2 2a K 
   I  for σ << σYS
8YS
2
8  YS 
One way to estimate the effective stress intensity with the strip-yield
model is to set aaff equal to a + ρ:

 a 
K eff   a sec  (2.80)
 2YS 

However, Equation (2.80) tends to overestimate Keff; the actual aeff is

somewhat less than a + ρ because the strip-yield zone is loaded to σYS.
Burdekin and Stone [26] obtained a more realistic estimate of Keff for the
strip-yield model

2
8  a 
K eff  YS a  2 In sec 
  2YS 
 2.8.3 COMPARISON OF PLASTIC ZONE CORRECTIONS

 The LEFM analysis predicts a linear relationship

between K and stress. Both the Irwin and strip-yield
corrections deviate from the LEFM theory at stresses
greater than 0.5σYS.

 The two plasticity corrections agree with each other up

to approximately 0.85σYS. According to the strip-yield
model, Keff is infinite at yield; the strip-yield zone
extends completely across the plate, which has reached
its maximum load capacity.

 The plastic zone shape predicted by the strip-yield

model bears little resemblance to actual plastic zones in
metals, but many polymers produce crack-tip craze
zones that look very much like Figure 2.31.

 Thus, although Dugdale originally proposed the strip-

yield model to account for yielding in thin steel sheets,
FIGURE 2.33 Comparison of plastic zone
this model is better suited to polymers. In the 1970s, the
corrections for a through crack in plane strain.
strip-yield model was used to derive a practical
methodology for assessing fracture in structural
components.
 2.8.4 PLASTIC ZONE SHAPE

e 
1
( 1   2 )  ( 1   3 )  ( 2   3 )
2 2 2

1/ 2

For Plane stress

2
1/ 2
 xx   yy     
2
  KI 
2
 
 1, 2    xx yy

   12  ry ( ) 
1
  1  cos  
3
sin2
 
2  2   4  YS   2 
 
For Plane stress

KI       For Plane strain

1  cos  1  cos 
2r  2   2  2
 KI   
KI       ry ( ) 
1
  (1  2 )2
(1  cos  ) 
3
sin2
 
2  cos  1  sin  4  YS   2 
2r  2   2 
3  0 For Plane stress

2K I  
 cos  For Plane strain
2r 2
 2.8.4 PLASTIC ZONE SHAPE

FIGURE 2.34 Crack-tip plastic zone shapes estimated from the elastic solutions (Table 2.1 and Table 2.3) and
the von Mises yield criterion: (a) Mode I (c) (b) Mode II and (c) Mode III.

FIGURE 2.34 Crack-tip plastic zone shapes estimated FIGURE 2.35 Contours of constant effective stress
from the elastic solutions (Table 2.1 and Table 2.3) in Mode I, obtained from finite element analysis.a The
and the von Mises yield criterion: (a) Mode I elastic-plastic boundary estimated from Equation (2.85a)
(c) (b) Mode II and (c) Mode III. is shown for comparison.
 2.9 K-CONTROLLED FRACTURE

 This Kcrit value, which is a measure of fracture

toughness, is a material constant that is
independent of the size and geometry of the
cracked body. Since energy release rate is
uniquely related to stress intensity, G also
provides a single-parameter description of crack-
tip conditions, and Gc is an alternative measure
of toughness.

FIGURE 2.37 Schematic test specimen and structure

loaded to the same stress intensity. The crack-tip
conditions should be identical in both configurations as
long as the plastic zone is small compared to all relevan
dimensions. Thus, both will fail at the same critical K
value.

FIGURE 2.38 Crack-tip stress fields for the

specimen and structure in Figure 2.37.
 2.10 PLANE STRAIN FRACTURE: FACT VS. FICTION

 In the 1960s, massive testing programs were undertaken by NASA and other
organizations in an effort to develop experimental procedures for measuring fracture
toughness in high strength materials. Among the variables that were considered in
these studies were the dimensions of the test specimen.

 In the 1960s, when “plane stress fracture” and “plane strain fracture” mechanisms
were first postulated, a detailed three-dimensional analysis of the stress state in
front of a crack was simply not possible. Today, three-dimensional finite element
analyses of components with cracks are commonplace (Chapter 12). Advances in
computer technology have significantly aided in our understanding of the behavior of
material at the tip of a crack.

 This section presents an updated perspective on the interrelationship between

specimen dimensions, crack-tip triaxiality, and fracture toughness.
 2.10.1 CRACK-TIP TRIAXIALITY

 Consider a cracked plate with thickness B subject to in-

plane loading, as illustrated in Figure 2.40. If there was
no crack, the plate would be in a state of plane stress.
Thus, regions of the plate that are sufficiently far from
the crack tip must also be loaded in plane stress.

 Material near the crack tip is loaded to higher stresses

than the surrounding material. Because of the large
stress normal to the crack plane, the crack-tip material FIGURE 2.41 Schematic variation of transverse
stress and strain through the thickness at a point
tries to contract in the x and z directions, but is
near the crack tip.
prevented from doing so by the surrounding material.
This constraint causes a triaxial state of stress near the
crack-tip,

At yield
 yy  YS
2.5YS

FIGURE 2.40 Three-dimensional deformation at the tip

of a crack. The high normal stress at the crack tip
FIGURE 2.42 Transverse stress through the thickness
causes material near the surface to contract, but
as a function of distance from the crack tip [28].
material in the interior is constrained, resulting in a
triaxial stress state.
 2.10.3 PLASTIC ZONE EFFECTS

FIGURE 2.48 Effect of KI, relative to thickness, of the
plastic zone size and shape. Taken from Nakamura,
T. and Parks, D.M., ASME AMD-91. American Society of
Mechanical Engineers, New York, 1988.
FIGURE 2.49 Cracked plate in which the plastic zone
size is of the same order of magnitude as the plate
thickness. The plastic zone at mid thickness has a
plane stress shape, but there is a zone of high
triaxiality close to the crack tip.

2
K 
a,B ,(W  a )  2.5 !C 
 YS 
 2.10.4 IMPLICATIONS FOR CRACKS IN STRUCTURES

2
K CRIT  K IC (1  1.4 !C )1/ 2

2
1 K 
IC   IC 
B  YS 
FIGURE 2.50 Schematic comparison of a laboratory specimen
with a flaw in a structural component. In the latter case, the stress
state and fracture morphology are not necessarily directly related
to section thickness.
H.W

2.2, 2.8, 2.11, 2,22

Thank You!